Twilio Ireland Limited v. SMS Consortium, LLC
| Twilio Ireland Limited |
| SMS Consortium, LLC |
| 1:2023cv07825 |
| October 19, 2023 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of New York |
| Sanket J Bulsara |
| Nina R Morrison |
| Contract: Other |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1441 Notice of Removal |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on December 13, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
ORDER granting #8 Motion to Remand to State Court: For the reasons set forth in the #4 Joint Motion to Remand, the Court remands this case to the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Kings County, index number 527257/2023. Ordered by Judge Nina R. Morrison on 12/13/2023. (AKC)
|
| Case Reassigned to Judge Nina R. Morrison. Magistrate Judge Sanket J. Bulsara remains assigned to the case for referral matters. Please download and review the Individual Practices of the assigned Judges, located on our #website. (BBM) |
|
ORDER: The Clerk of Court is directed to assign a District Judge to this case to effectuate the remand of this case to state court.So Ordered by Magistrate Judge Sanket J. Bulsara on 12/1/2023. (EM)
|
| Filing 9 Letter in Response to Order to Show Cause by SMS Consortium, LLC (Shulman, Motty) |
| Filing 8 Joint MOTION to Remand to State Court By Stipulation by SMS Consortium, LLC. (Shulman, Motty) |
|
SCHEDULING ORDER: The initial conference scheduled for 12/15/2023, and the corresponding Rule 26(f) Report deadline, are hereby adjourned sine die. So Ordered by Magistrate Judge Sanket J. Bulsara on 11/27/2023. (AL)
|
|
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE: Defendant SMS Consortium, LLC is ordered to show cause why Plaintiff's motion to remand #5 should not be granted, why this case should not be remanded to state court, and why sanctions should not be imposed for improper removal. The removal of this case is plainly frivolous. SMS's removal papers aver that "Plaintiff is a citizen of Ireland and Defendant is a citizen of Israel, where all its members reside." (Notice of Removal, Dkt. No. 1 para. 11). The presence of aliens on both sides of the litigation results in the absence of subject matter jurisdiction, not its existence. See Corporacion Venezolana de Fomento v. Vintero Sales Corp., 629 F.2d 786, 790 (2d Cir. 1980) ("[T]he fact that alien parties were present on both sides would destroy complete diversity."); Bayerische Landesbank, N.Y. Branch v. Aladdin Cap. Mgmt. LLC, 692 F.3d 42, 49 (2d Cir. 2012) ("[W]e do not have diversity jurisdiction over cases between aliens. More specifically, diversity is lacking where the only parties are foreign entities, or where on one side there are citizens and aliens and on the opposite side there are only aliens." (alteration omitted) (quotations omitted)). Rule 11 sanctions are appropriate for frivolous removal petitions, e.g., Four Keys Leasing & Maint. Corp. v. Simithis, 849 F.2d 770, 774 (2d Cir. 1988) ("We also reject Simithis's claim that the sanctions imposed on his attorney for filing his removal petition were improper. The removal petition was plainly frivolous."), or for failing to appreciate the well-established law regarding aliens and subject matter jurisdiction. Int'l Shipping Co., S.A. v. Hydra Offshore, Inc., 875 F.2d 388, 389 (2d Cir. 1989) ("Subject matter jurisdiction is the sine qua non of the exercise of power by a federal court. One purpose of Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is to prevent an attorney from haling a party into federal court without having performed, at the very least, a reasonable inquiry into the jurisdictional underpinning of the lawsuit.") (affirming sanctions for filing complaint on the basis of diversity jurisdiction where aliens were present on both sides of litigation).SMS must file a letter by 12/1/2023 indicating the basis for subject matter jurisdiction and why sanctions should not be imposed. Alternatively, SMS may consent to remand, enter a stipulation for the same with Plaintiff, and file the stipulation by that date. So Ordered by Magistrate Judge Sanket J. Bulsara on 11/27/2023. (AL)
|
| Filing 7 MOTION to Dismiss by SMS Consortium, LLC. (Attachments: #1 Memorandum in Support, #2 Affidavit in Support Exhibit 1 (Letzter Dec.)) (Shulman, Motty) |
| Filing 6 Letter Requesting Abeyance by Twilio Ireland Limited (Pasalides, Nicholas) |
| Filing 5 MOTION to Remand to State Court by Twilio Ireland Limited. (Attachments: #1 Memorandum in Support, #2 Exhibit 1 - Notice of Removal, #3 Affidavit of Mark Reilly) (Pasalides, Nicholas) |
|
Filing 4
SCHEDULING ORDER: A telephonic initial conference will be held at 11:30 A.M. on 12/15/2023 before Magistrate Judge Sanket J. Bulsara. The parties are directed to call the toll-free number 877-336-1274. The access code is 6534420. The parties shall dial in five (5) minutes before the conference. Counsel are directed to complete the attached Rule 26(f) Report and electronically file same with the Court no later than 12/12/2024. Should the parties wish to adopt a plan for discovery different from the structure in the Rule 26(f) Report, they may do so only if they file a letter explaining why such a plan is appropriate in this case. Upon receipt of this email counsel shall confirm with each other of the date and time of this telephonic initial conference.So Ordered by Magistrate Judge Sanket J. Bulsara on 11/13/2023. (EM)
|
| Filing 3 This attorney case opening filing has been checked for quality control. See the attachment for corrections that were made, if any. (CV) |
| This case has been opened in the Eastern District of New York. If you plan to continue representing your client(s), you must be admitted to practice before this court. You must do so by applying for Pro Hac Vice or permanent admission. To apply for Pro Hac Vice admission, you must first register for an ECF login and password. Please visit the Court's website at www.nyed.uscourts.gov/attorney-admissions for guidance. Once registered, you must electronically file a Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice. You must pay the required pro hac vice fee online. (CV) |
| Filing 2 Clerks Notice Re: Consent. A magistrate judge has been assigned as the presiding judge in this case as part of a Pilot Program, governed by EDNY Administrative Order 2023-23. In accordance with Rule 73 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Local Rule 73.1, the parties are notified that if all parties consent, the assigned Magistrate Judge is available to conduct all proceedings in this action including a (jury or nonjury) trial and to order the entry of a final judgment. Attached to this Notice is a blank copy of the consent form that should be filled out, signed and filed electronically only if all parties wish to consent. The form is also available here: #https://www.nyed.uscourts.gov/edny-direct-assignment-pilot-program. Any party may withhold its consent without adverse substantive consequences. Do NOT return or file the consent unless all parties have signed the consent. Unless all parties consent to the Magistrate Judge jurisdiction by the deadline set forth in the Administrative Order 2023-23, a District Judge will be assigned to the case. The parties are directed to review the terms of Administrative Order 2023-23 and other materials related to the Pilot Program on the Courts website: #https://www.nyed.uscourts.gov/edny-direct-assignment-pilot-program. (CV) |
| Case Assigned to Magistrate Judge Sanket J. Bulsara. Please download and review the Individual Practices of the assigned Judges, located on our #website. Attorneys are responsible for providing courtesy copies to judges where their Individual Practices require such. (CV) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT Notice of Removal against All Defendants Was the Disclosure Statement on Civil Cover Sheet completed -YES,, filed by SMS Consortium, LLC. (Attachments: #1 Removal Action Complaint Exhibit A (State Court Action), #2 Declaration Exhibit B (Letzter Declaration), #3 Civil Cover Sheet Civil Coversheet) (Shulman, Motty) |
Access additional case information on PACER
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the New York Eastern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
| Search for this case: Twilio Ireland Limited v. SMS Consortium, LLC | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Plaintiff: Twilio Ireland Limited | |
| Represented By: | Nicholas A Pasalides |
| Represented By: | Nicholas Pasalides |
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Finance | [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Defendant: SMS Consortium, LLC | |
| Represented By: | Motty Shulman |
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Finance | [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
